Jim D wrote:
I, for one, never thought that the invasion of Iraq was simply aimed
at seizing its oil supplies on behalf of US oil interests. Rather,
like most specific policies of the state, it resulted from a
combination of pushes and pulls from different political or economic
interest groups (including Israel).[*] The results, of course, were
determined not only by the Bushwa Brigade's goals but also by their
execution of their strategies (or lack thereof) and tactics -- along
with the effects of Iraqi resistance.
[*] Remember the initially proposed new flag for Iraq -- that was
reminiscent of the Israeli one.
=============================
Yes, I recall you challenging the notion that the war was all about grabbing
control of the oil fields. While that was an element, I felt then and still
do that Iraq was more about a) the 'demonstration effect" - the new Bush
admin wanting to put "rogue states" like Iran, NK, and Libya as well as the
US's soft European allies on notice that a new sheriff was in town which
would use Rumsfeld's New Model Army rather than the Clinton admin's
inconclusive sanctions and subversion to shock and awe the Empire's enemies
into submission; b) removing Saddam as their patron and breaking the will of
the Palestinians to resist the imposition of a "peace settlement" on
Israel's terms and c) in the wake of 9/11, consolidating the hold of the
triumphant neocons and Republican party on US political life.
They got more than they bargained for - within a few years, tens of
thousands of US dead and wounded, the survival and acquisition of a nuclear
capability by Iran and North Korea, a changed relationship of forces within
the Middle East marked by the rise of Hezbollah and Hamas, and,
domestically, the marginalization of the neocons and the collapse of the
Republican party .
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
